The Philosophers' Cocoon

Giving less effort for less pay?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I make less now than when I started my tenure track job, controlling for inflation. I think it's my right to give less effort on this basis. For example, if my employer is only paying me 90% of what it used to, for the same work, then I can give 90% of the effort I used to (the 90% is more than sufficient to cover the job requirements).

Some of you might disagree, but that's not my question. My question is instead: is it ok, morally, for me to lower my teaching effort? On the one hand, I care about teaching and the students did nothing wrong in this case. On the other hand, I don't want to let my employer leverage my conscience to get me to work uncompensated (giving the same effort for less pay).

I lean towards its being OK. After all, you get what you pay for, and the students are paying for an education from an institution that underpays its faculty. And my 90% is still better than whatever effort the dead wood at the institution is giving.

This is an interesting question, and I'm curious what readers think. One reader submitted the following response:

Your contractual obligations do not change. Depending where you work, you might find if you scale back you are in violation of your contract. You can be fired. Of course your pay should not shrink! I am not crazy. But, know the law. For example, public employees cannot strike in New York. And to act as you suggest you are going to act may in fact constitute a breach of contract.

This doesn't seem to me to be quite right, at least not given what the OP is describing. Professors are only contractually obligated to fulfill their assigned duties, which in this case is simply teach their classes (and do so competently). Contracts don't state that a person must 'give 100% effort' (or whatever). Rather, university handbooks standardly contain provisions for what comprises merit in teaching, which are normally used for tenure and promotion purposes--which is a different issue. So let's return to the OP's main question, which is whether it is moral for them to give less effort in response to receiving less pay.

Getting a job at a university that isn't hiring?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Tom writes:

Is it ever feasible to try and get a job at a university that isn't hiring (sounds silly I know)? For example, suppose I really want to live in location y, but the only university in y is not hiring. Is it a total waste of time to approach the university and try to sell myself anyway? Has anyone ever gotten a job this way? I know this happens all the time in the private/non-academic world. I'm wondering if it ever happens in the academic world.

Interesting questions. I expect it could be possible, but only if you are a really in-demand candidate (i.e. a 'superstar'), and maybe then only if you're a tenured person who is a big name of sorts. But I don't really know. This is really just me speculating. I do know that, at universities like mine, approval of tenure-stream lines is a big process that has to go through the Dean, Provost, President, etc., so I think it's highly unlikely that approaching the university to try to sell yourself would work. At most, the university might approve a tenure-stream line the next year, and you'd have to apply like everyone else. Also, on that note, I don't know how other universities work, but mine seems to have a standing policy of making all hires international, open searches. I think there may even be equal opportunity laws that require this, but I'm not sure--as I do know that sometimes research universities just make offers to (usually senior) people without doing full searches. 

What do you all think? Anyone have any better inside information than me here?

Getting into philosophy with a science PhD?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Yn writes in:

I'm a Ph.D. student in science and about to get my Ph.D. degree this year (so I won't just quit). But I am also interested in some lifetime metaphysical and epistemological questions and want to contribute to them. (It sounds arrogant, but let's firstly assume I have the potential.)

However, my goal is basically impossible without strict philosophical training, which I don't have. As far as I consider, there are two possible ways.

1) I spend another 4-5 years on another graduate program in philosophy;
2) Collaborate with philosophers working on relevant topics and contribute with my scientific skills primarily and get trained.

For the first option, since I don't have any academic background in philosophy, I don't know how hard it is to get a position. And if I do so, I nearly give up my potential scientific career, which I would rather not.

For the second option, I have no idea how to find philosophers that want to work with scientists.

Here, I ask for your consideration of the two possibilities. How difficult are they? How can I manage them? Or any other possibility you could suggest?

And after all, how should I evaluate whether I have the potential to make a contribution?

Good questions! Prof L. submitted the following reply:

Approaching soft job market years in a postdoc

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

How should one think about soft job market years while on a postdoc? Should you take one every year, or relax if you've got a few years to go? How time consuming are they, and what other factors should be considered?

These are good questions, which apply equally well to VAPs (Visiting Assistant Professor positions), and I'm curious to hear how readers respond. I'm apt to think that because the market is in many ways a lottery--and you never know how your luck may play out year to year--it's probably a good idea to apply each year, all things being equal. Applying each year may simply be the best way to maximize your overall chances of getting a permanent job. Still, not all things may be equal. Let me explain.

Teaching portfolio syllabi: full or abridged?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a really small question about the sample syllabi one includes in a teaching portfoli. How full should these syllabi be? My full syllabi include all sorts of info about grading, course expectations, description, info about plagiarism and writing help resources, etc. Am I right to assume potential employers don't want to wade through all of this, and so I should strip down the versions in my teaching portfolio to the essentials (maybe reading list, course description...what else)? If so, what should I include and not? 

Good questions! I'm not sure on all of them, but I would think that info on grading and course expectations are good to include, as I've known search committee members who care a lot about how things are graded, how grading is distributed in the course (across different kinds of assignments), and so on. I'm not sure about other things, though, such as plagiarism policies, etc. What do you all think?

Submitting R&Rs late?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Is there a penalty for returning an R&R a few days late? It is due imminently. I've already asked for a (brief, roughly 3 week) extension once and don't want to ask again. But I haven't been able to work much on it and at this point I feel like few extra days will make a real difference to the quality of the revised manuscript I submit. Thanks everyone.

Another reader responded, "I would just ask again. But there's probably no penalty." I don't have any experience submitting things late, so unfortunately I can't offer advice or share any experiences here. But I'm curious: do any readers out there have experiences worth sharing? Emailing the editor seems like the best thing to do if one can't get an R&R on time. But I'm curious, in particular, whether people have submitted R&Rs late with no problems, or whether people have run into serious issues with this.

Tips regarding academic jobs in Italy?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Folks have asked about jobs in various European places before and the discussions are usually interesting. But on a quick search of the site I don’t see much about working in Italy. If anyone knows anything I’d love to hear it. Specific questions to get the ball rolling: how does the hiring process work? Are there job ads or do you just gotta have your ear to the ground? What’s pay like? What’s work like? Are professors respected in Italy? Stuff like that.

Great questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I'm Italian, working in another European country. All jobs are listed here: https://bandi.miur.it/ You have to search per area of specialisation, which are quite strict (Moral philosophy, Logic and Phil SC, etc). The majority of jobs will require proficiency in Italian and, I'd say, many jobs have internal candidates. For jobs that don't need Italian proficiency, you'll hear from the usual channels such as Philos, philjobs, etc. To be eligible to apply for Associate professorship, you need a national habilitation (called Abilitazione Nazionale). You need to meet some requirements in terms of publishing (most of the major philosophical journals are included in a list that a committee will consider) and service. For publishing, it's either a book or 10 articles/chapters in the past 5 years; a book and 3 articles from prestigious journals; or 10 articles/chapters and 3 articles from prestigious journals. Requirements of service are not really clear. There are also a few tenure track jobs: they are called 'ricercatore a tempo determinato b' (rtd b). When you get one of these jobs, you are promised a tenured position after 3 years, pending the achievement of the Abilitazione Nazionale. Pay is not very good, if compared to nearby countries such as Austria or Switzerland. Just anecdotally: when I was a VAP in the US, I made more money than an associate professor. However, unless you live in Rome or Milan, life is cheap and the quality of life is just great. Overall, I think that philosophers in Italy, if they are tenured, live a pleasant and intellectually stimulating life (at least the ones I know). They have tons of time for research and, in general, very few people cares about teaching (but that's something characterizing Europe overall). Moreover, I'd like to add that in my field (philosophy of science), there are great and competitive scholars.

This comment is really helpful, and enlightening to boot (as an outsider, it is always interesting to hear how things work in different countries!). Any other readers with experience in philosophy in Italy have any other helpful information to share?

Journal submission embargoes?

In one of our recent "how can we help you?" threads, a reader writes:

Can someone explain to me why, for the past two years at least, Nous and PPR have not accepted submissions for about 8 months out of 12? I'm a bit new to things, and this seems like, well, a rare practice. Also, if I'm honest, I guess I find it a bit frustrating as a junior person. I totally understand that reviewers are people and all of that; but I honestly just don't see why those two journals, out of all of them, have implemented this seemingly eccentric policy.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

[Y]es there is a reason. These journals get so many submissions that at one point they close down so that an even larger backlog does not accumulate.´ It is one way to deal with the problem. I published in Nous, around the time these embargoes were first introduced. How does it feel to publish in Nous? Fine. But I work in a sub-field where the main general philosophy journals are not the key place to publish. If you work in M&E it is probably more important to try to publish in such journals.

For a bit more context, the OP and other interested readers might want to peruse David Velleman's 2017 guest post at Daily Nous, 'The Publication Emergency.' It is, I think, an unfortunate situation that two of the highest-ranked generalist philosophy journals have submission embargoes - and I can't help but wonder whether the embargoes might be a bit self-defeating, in that there are presumably legions of people who wait each year until October 1st to submit papers the moment the embargoes are lifted (thus deluging those journals with submissions). But presumably those journals would have vastly more submissions were it not for the embargoes, so I don't know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Online conference ideas for spending spare $ on?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a question that is likely to be relevant to quite a few current postdocs, but not only to them.

I find myself in a position where I have a reasonably short-term postdoctoral research position which, while it lasts, has a decent amount of money allocated specifically for research event expenses. I had intended to put on a fairly big conference on the topic of my research project which would have cost a fair amount, but since this has been moved online due to the pandemic the funds are going unused (and the participants are no longer getting treated to a nice meal or two and a stay in an interesting place).

I wonder if anyone has any recommendations for fun and/or interesting supplements to online conferences that it would be worth spending some money on, and that participants would be likely to appreciate?

Good question - any ideas from readers?

Can one remain competitive while teaching K-12?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a question about "staleness" and the job market.

I just defended my dissertation. Last year I got a position as the Logic/Philosophy (and Latin) teacher at a middle/high school. My PhD was a major factor in my being hired, outweighing my lack of an Ed degree or significant K-12 experience. So I'm employed as a philosopher in a FT academic position, but not in a traditional way.

I love my job and at this point I feel like I could stay here forever. But I don't want to assume that's what's going to happen, and I could see myself wanting more time for research someday, so I continue to watch the market.

So suppose for the next several years I teach middle/high school philosophy, publish 1-2 articles a year (given I'm teaching 6-8 classes at a time and have a family), adjunct here and there, and then apply for TT positions. Would I be seen by committees as an early/mid-career philosopher making a lateral or upward move, or a "stale" PhD grad who never "made it"? Or how do I prepare and present myself so as to appear (as I actually would be) the former rather than the latter?

(FWIW The program here is pretty rigorous. Students take a year of informal logic and two years of formal logic in middle school, so once they reach high school they're better prepared for a philosophy class than the vast majority of college students I've taught.)

Great questions! I'm curious to hear what readers think. I'm inclined to think that if a person in this situation really does publish one or two articles per year while teaching K-12 and adjuncting at a university, then sure, they could remain competitive--at least for jobs at teaching focused universities and community colleges. Further, I can't help but wonder whether, if they found a way to publish in top-ranked journals, they might remain competitive for postdocs or research jobs. But I'm inclined to think that (A) a lot turns on whether they do in fact continue to publish (which might be difficult while teaching K-12), and (B) whether they keep adjuncting (as I expect universities will favor candidates who have more university-level teaching experience over candidates with less). 

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Joining editorial boards while non-TT?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I have a general question about joining editorial boards/working as a journal editor while one is in a postdoc or a non-TT position. In short, is it worth it? Does having something like that on your CV look pretty good, enough to offset the responsibilities that come with it? Or is it generally better to wait until one is securely employed (and maybe tenured) before taking on that level of service to the profession?

And here's another more narrow question: if you - a non-TT philosopher - do interdisciplinary work, and you get invited to join an editorial board for a (reputable) journal in another field, should you do it?

Interesting questions! I'm inclined to think that it depends a lot on the journal. If it's a prestigious journal, then I'm inclined to think it may look impressive - as it indicates that well-recognized people in the discipline think highly of you and consider you an expert in the area. However, how likely is it that you'll be approached to join an editorial board at a journal like that while you're in a non-TT job? It seems unlikely to me, and that the more likely case is that you may be approached to be on an editorial board of a less-prestigious journal. And in that case, I'm not sure it's worth it, in terms of 'looking good' for the job market and later tenure decisions if/when you get a TT job. By a similar token, I'm not sure joining the editorial board of a reputable (but not particularly prestigious) interdisciplinary journal is likely to help much on the philosophy job-market.

So, since editorial responsibilities can be time-consuming, and the primary things you'll be judged on while you're on the market or a tenure decision will be research and teaching, I'm inclined to think that in most cases, it's probably not worth joining an editorial board while non-TT. Indeed, I've known junior people who have worked for journals, and I've heard it can be a lot of work (without, again, a lot of 'upside'). For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that it's generally better to wait until tenure to join editorial boards - unless, of course again you're invited to join a particularly prestigious journal (in which case that is, I think, a different story).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting recommended verdicts in referee reports?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a question about referring. What are people’s thoughts about putting your verdict into your report for the author? E.g. putting “I am recommending revise & resubmit …” or “I am recommending rejection because …” somewhere near the beginning. Do you think it is best practice to always do this, or perhaps to refrain from it? The editor of course already knows the referee’s verdict, but I’m asking about a referee communicating that verdict directly to the author. As an author I sometimes have to read the tea leaves about whether a referee thought a paper should be revised or just rejected. I’d be interested to hear what authors and referees think, but also editors as well. Maybe there's a reason that info shouldn't always be included?

Chivers Butler responded:

I suspect this would result in authors arguing with editors over their decisions, or at least attempting to get them to justify their decisions when they differ from that of (one of) the referees.

I'm actually a bit surprised by this response. As a referee, I always either put some kind of recommendation or other in my review for the author, or in a few rare cases have explained why I had trouble arriving at a firm recommendation. I've just always assumed this to be good practice, and I've always been thankful as an author when referees are clear about their recommendations.

How can we help you? (March-April 2021)

Now that it's been close to a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Publishing philosophy without credentials?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I do not have an academic background in philosophy but nevertheless have ended up spending significant time working on a philosophy book for which has required vast amounts of research and reading. (I have worked with academics in the process to challenge my ideas & check I am not totally mad).

When published, I wonder if the academic audience will treat it as 'no-good' or not give it the time of day because it does not come from someone working in an institution. I am curious, is this likely or will it simply come to the quality of ideas?

This is a good question, and I am glad that someone asked! Allow me to share some thoughts before opening things for discussion.

How does 'networking' help?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I've been inspired by the discussion about ways to flourish in the profession as an introvert.

While many people have mentioned the importance of networking, I am wondering if people can share some concrete examples of the benefits from networking, especially for graduate students and junior faculty members.

I can see that networking could help a person find external members for their committee and have letters for the job market (grad student) or for promotion (junior faculty). I have a hard time seeing other benefits besides abstract things like knowing your name and knowing your work. For example, do people get invited to apply for some jobs or get invited to submit to a journal because of networking? Any other concrete examples?

These are great questions! I'd love to hear concrete examples not only from grad students and junior faculty, but also from senior faculty, including (for example) those who have served on search committees, edited books or special journal issues, etc. If you're a grad student or faculty member, do you know of any concrete examples of how 'networking' helped you? And, if you're a senior faculty member, do you know of concrete examples where it helped junior folk? 

Contacting profs before applying to postdocs?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, sahpa writes:

After washing out on the job market twice now, I'm contemplating a strategy for being a bit more proactive and selective in what I apply for, going forward.

I'm thinking about reaching out to professors (for European postdocs, where the norm is to be attached to a specific professor) in advance and just telling them a little about myself, and then asking them whether they think I might fit for the position they're looking to fill. This would be primarily to ascertain whether I should even bother applying. This could benefit both parties: me, because I could hopefully figure out quite cheaply whether to invest substantial time into the application itself; and them, because it would help them preemptively manage the pile of applications they'll receive. In this respect, it's a win-win.

However, I'm worried that, if this is just not really done, it might come off the wrong way. On the other hand, if a lot of these postdocs get filled through networks anyway (and I have some evidence, here and there, that that might be rather common), is this really problematic?

Can readers who have relevant experience in the European postdoc market weigh in?

Two readers submitted replies:

I work in Europe and I am familiar with the post-doc culture. I would NOT contact someone unless they have a post doc position advertised. I get contacted by two types of people about post doc positions: (i) those in foreign countries who want to get into a program with financial support (which I do not have, if there is no advertisement); and (ii) those in certain countries who may have funding from their home government and want to consider coming to work at my institution. Wait for an ad to be posted. Then contact the people. That is the normal way. - Submitted by Euro

It's a good idea, but the wrong method, I think. Conferences, seminars, and workshops are much better ways of finding out if more senior people are interested working with you. - Submitted by William Peden

I'm curious what other readers think. Euro seems to think it's fine to do after a job ad has been submitted. But I share the OP's and William Peden's concern that it could come off poorly. Then again, given how much time and effort it does take to apply to jobs, it also seems to me like a legitimate thing to do. It might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees (particularly for European postdocs), as well as from people who have either tried what the OP describes or who have been contacted by people in the OP's situation. What do you all think?

Can shy, timid people flourish in the profession?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Is a shy and timid person suitable for a philosophical profession? I am a phd student and not outgoing, and in fact quite unconfident. I usually doubt whether I am right when I defend my view. But I see so many philosophers confident and decisive. In fact, I barely meet anyone like me in this profession. I am wondering whether a timid person could do philosophy.

Great question, and I am curious to hear how readers answer, particularly those of you who match the OP's description. If you're shy and timid, have you found yourself 'suitable' for the profession? Have you been able to flourish? If so, how? Did you have to work to overcome your tendencies?

When to give up on the academic job market?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Here's a question that I could use an answer to. When is it time to give up on the tenure-track job hunt? I understand that in one way this depends on personal circumstances. That's not what I'm asking. I'm wondering at what point, after years of rejection, can you be reasonably confident that a tenure-track job is not going to happen.

I have a CV that's good enough for tenure at most R1s. At this point, will more books or articles or teaching experience help? I'm beginning to doubt it. I have gotten a lot of helpful feedback over the years, and the things I know would really help, like different demographics, I do not have control over.

These are good questions. As this philosophy job-placement graph illustrates, the job-market is basically a toss-up: depending on what kind of PhD program you graduate from, your overall chances of getting a tenure-track job are somewhere between 20-60%. Then there's the following graph, which I first posted about here: 

Delaying publication dates for tenure?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Here's a question that I've only had the opportunity to ponder in the abstract.

Some places only count pubs towards tenure if they came out while you're officially at that college/university, i.e. stuff you published in previous jobs elsewhere doesn't count towards tenure.

Have people ever tried delaying publications when transitioning to a new job (especially NTT to TT). Either by explicitly asking a journal that has accepted a paper to wait or more informally by dragging one's feet to submit an R&R draft? Do people have other strategies?

To reiterate, hold the rotten veggies, I don't have a TT offer and a forthcoming paper. Just curious if this is a thing.

Interesting question, and a good one to ask, as I expect not all readers know of this feature of many TT jobs. My university works like this. When you come up for tenure, candidates are evaluated only on what they have done since starting the job. So, publication dates can make a big difference. I guess I don't think it's appropriate to try to ask a journal to delay publication (though I'd be very curious to hear if any readers think it is appropriate and/or have tried it!). I guess I'm also not sure whether it's a great idea to delay completing an R&R for this reason, as plenty of R&R's are rejected and it's always possible that if you delay publishing, the literature will move on in some way that renders your argument passé (undermining your ability to ever publish the relevant paper). Personally, this is something that always stresses me out, as there have been a few occasions in my career where I was 'beaten to the punch' on an argument that appeared in the literature. So, I generally try to publish quickly. But of course these are just my predilections, and I know mine aren't everyone's. 

Anyway, what do you all think? It might be good to hear from readers who have found themselves in the OP's situation. Do you have any inside tips?

Funded high-ranked MA or lower-ranked PhD?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am a current PhD applicant waitlisted at several top 20 programs with some offers from lower-ranked programs. I also have gotten a funded offer from a top terminal MA program with excellent PhD placement. Does anyone have any advice about how to decide at which point I am better off doing the MA first and then re-applying in two years? Are there any important questions to ask myself and the lower-ranked programs that might help me make a clear list of "better than MA" schools and "worse than an MA" schools?

Great question! My sense is that the funded MA is probably the better idea, but I think it probably matters what the job placement rate of the lower-ranked PhD program is - as some lower-ranked PhD programs have very strong placement rates whereas others don't. What do you all think? It might be especially good to hear from students who pursued either type of option, what the results of the choice were, and how satisfied they are with the choice they made.

Ideal publication record for getting a non-R1 job?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

What's an ideal publication record for someone who's not aiming to end up at an R1 institution?

Here's why I ask: I just defended, and I lucked out to get a one year postdoc that's research oriented. I've also been lucky, in that I've had success publishing (3 publications in journals that are top ranked in my field... however my PhD isn't from a notable department). I've got more papers I could send out to journals. However, my worry is that if I publish too much, too soon, I might make myself look unattractive for jobs that are teaching orientated (even though I've taught a fair amount too). Might I inadvertently give the impression to search committees at teaching schools that I'm only interested in research? Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy in a dept. without big research expectations - not to mention, because my PhD isn't from top tier department, it's really unlikely I'd ever be able to land anything close to an R1 job anyhow.

What's the best approach to take?

This is an excellent question - though I'm not sure there is anything remotely like a determinate answer to it. For example, the OP notes that they already have 3 publications in journals that are top-ranked in their field. While I suspect a publication record like this may already price the OP out of some jobs--specifically, jobs at small, non-elite SLACs whose focus is on teaching--I suspect there are plenty of other non-R1s where those kinds of publications are likely to be looked upon favorably. Indeed, my sense is that research expectations and norms can differ dramatically across non-R1 jobs. So, I'm not sure there's an 'ideal publication record' for getting a non-R1 job. Rather, I suspect that something like the following rule of thumb is the best way for candidates to think: the more highly-ranked publications you get, the less you may look like a good 'fit' for a non-R1; the more lower-ranked publications you get, the more you may look like a 'good fit' for non-R1 jobs. Here's some anecdotal data for thinking this is true, and it certainly fits with my experience on the market.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be especially good to hear from people who have served on hiring committees at non-R1's, as well as from people who got jobs at non-R1's on what their publication records were like at the time they were hired!

Submitting papers that borrow from each other?

In our newest "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I have a question about submitting a paper ("Paper 1") to a journal that borrows from thinking/writing in another paper ("Paper 2"). Paper 2 is under review/in manuscript form.

The situation I'm in is this: Paper 1 attempts to a solve a problem that was raised in Paper 2. But to motivate why we should care about the problem, I had to sketch the view I develop in Paper 2. I borrow heavily from my work in Paper 2 to do this, and thus there's a lot of overlap between the papers for a few pages of Paper 1. I of course tried to present the material slightly differently and with different examples, but I'm rehashing the same arguments/considerations.

I would like to submit Paper 1 to a journal as well. But I'm not sure what the norms are regarding borrowing from work in progress in cases like this. (I do mention in a footnote that I'm borrowing from other work I have.) Should I just submit and not worry about it, or should I wait or try to edit Paper 1 down a ton to *really* minimize overlap. (Again, there's only so much I can do that!)

Any thoughts very appreciated! Maybe I'm just being paranoid about the norms.

This is an excellent question, and frankly one that I've never been able to resolve very well. I suspect it's something that many early career people struggle with, particularly when it comes to publishing work from one's dissertation. The thing about dissertations, after all, is that they are usually addressing a particular problem, so different chapters may draw on similar stuff (i.e. 'set up'), and draw upon each other in different ways. Like I said, I've never developed a very good answer to the question, and I've mostly just tried to minimize overlap (not always very successfully). So I'd be very curious to hear what other readers do, and whether they have any helpful tips!

Grappling with student complaints?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am in a TT contract in a NA university (but I did not study nor leave in NA before). The head of my department recently let me know that two students had complained with him about me. The reason is trivial: I wrote in a tweet "I am reading a student's paper and I would like to share some reflections…". The reflections were very general and had to do with the profession in general (use of philosophical jargon, i.e., something we ALL do). The students thought I was publicly criticizing one of them.

Between the lines, I understood that they are among my advanced students, with whom I was confident to have built a good relationship and whom I had offered hours and hours of "counselling" in this horrible year. I am heartbroken that they did not feel confident enough to reach out to me first before calling or emailing the head of the department. I do not know how to get back to normal, I oscillate between anger and despair (yes, the year has been hard for me too!).

One reader submitted the following frank reply:

You should not tweet about student work ... or imply your tweets are inspired by student work. It is inappropriate. Almost everything on twitter is inappropriate. I hope you can sort this out, but stop tweeting.

While I think frank responses like these can be important to hear, I also think that because this is supposed to be a supportive blog I'd like to try to be a bit more supportive than that. So, with an eye to a little solidarity with the OP, I'll be honest: like many people (or so I suspect), I made a few errors early in my career that got me into a bit of trouble. Each case stressed me the hell out, and I worried that I'd destroyed my career or whatever. Fortunately, my spouse counseled me to avoid that kind of catastrophizing, assuring me that things would blow over - and sure enough, they did. The crucial things, I think, are to realize that we're all human and to learn to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

Grappling with interpersonal discouragement?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'd benefit a lot from discussions of graduate students dealing with interpersonally discouraging experiences (e.g. a faculty underestimated them, treated them differently compared to others, being mistaken as someone else, etc). My colleague and I (both women) struggle with feeling discouraged from experiences like those, and I'd be curious if minority philosophers feel this way more often. Do people have coping strategies?

This is a really good and important query, and I am sorry to hear that the OP and her colleague are feeling so discouraged. I grappled with discouragement from some interpersonal experiences early in my career, and frankly I didn't deal with it very well: I isolated myself from others and turned to all kinds of non-academic distractions. The only things that helped me through it were finding a support group (which I found in a supportive dissertation reading group) and working hard to become a better philosopher (which made me feel more competent as my work seemed to improve). But I'm don't know how helpful these experiences are for readers in the OP's situation. 

What do you all think? Have you had interpersonally discouraging experiences in graduate school? If so, have you found any good coping strategies? Any strategies that didn't work (or otherwise backfired)? Following the OP's suggestion, I think it could be good to hear from readers in general, but particularly from minority philosophers.

Accept a postdoc or wait?

I don't normally post on the weekends, but in our newest "how can we help you?" a reader asks a time sensitive question:

I was luckily just offered a postdoc which I would be very happy to have, but I also have some outstanding (in the mundane sense of the word) applications to TT jobs which I would definitely take instead if offered them. What should I do here? Withdraw from those jobs and take the postdoc? Ask the post-doc people to wait who-knows-how-long? Take the postdoc and then on the off chance that I get an interview for one of the TT jobs take the interview and ultimately decline the postdoc if I were offered a job? Thanks everyone.

Another reader submitted the following response:

You take the post doc, and then deal with things if another job comes along. There is no need to tell the colleges where you applied anything. They have not offered you anything yet. And then if you are offered something else, write back to the Cocoon and I will give advice then. Look at it objectively. All you have is an offer of employment. And you need a job.

I entirely agree with this response. If my experience in life has taught me anything, it is that if you get offered something good, take it. Don't pass up a good opportunity in the mere hope that you'll get something better. I've seen people do that, end up with nothing, and never get an opportunity as good as the one they passed up. If you try to ask the postdoc people to wait, they could very well just offer the job to someone else. So, I wouldn't risk that. They're not hiring a tenure-track person after all. A postdoc is a temporary hire, so they probably don't have that much invested in you per se. In contrast, if you get offered a TT job after accepting the postdoc, then deal with that situation then. I've known many postdocs who were able to defer their TT start date for a year because of a postdoc. That happens all the time, and people hiring for a TT position have reason to want to hang onto you: they're interested in hiring you (potentially) for life.

Anyway, that's my advice. What's yours? 

Using personal email account for work?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

This is a fairly minor question, but I typically have used my personal email for academic business. If I'm sending an email internally (to my chair or the dean, and so on) I will use my university email address, but the university has made it annoying enough (so secure that it's a pain in the ass to check it and email from it) that otherwise I will simply use my personal email, to email with journals, professional organizations, casual notes to colleagues, and so on. I have my personal email on my CV. I also like doing that because I have changed institutions enough that it's irritating to re-do all my journal logins and so on.

Is this normal? Does it rub people the wrong way? I will sometimes get an email back from someone, an individual or an editor, and they will send it to my university email, even though I have only emailed from my personal address. It feels like a rebuke. After all, they had to look it up! But maybe I am reading too much into it. It makes me wonder if I am violating some norm here, by emailing about academic matters from a gmail account.

These may seem like minor questions (and in some ways they are), but my experience is that answering them wrongly can have unwanted consequences. Allow me to explain. I'm not personally rubbed the wrong way by someone using their personal email address, and I know many people who do. However, one reader submitted the following reply to the OP:

I think if your job is TT you should be using the university e-mail for all professional correspondence. Your work is supported by your institution. And, at the end of the day, if there is a problem with your professional behavior it will (rightLY9 come back to your institution. So once you've settled down you should use the uni address. Incidentally, I often have to contact people, and many I do not know, and I ONLY use uni addresses.

Indeed, some universities require faculty to use their university email for work purposes for this very reason, and I know faculty who have gotten in some real trouble for not realizing this was their university's policy. So, that's one thing. Another thing (at least in the US) is FERPA, a federal law relating to academic records. The OP doesn't say that they use their personal email for communication with students, but if they do, it could lead to problems--for example, if their personal email account is hacked and private student information somehow exposed (whereas if this happens with your university account, the university bears responsibility). Anyway, these are just a few things. The only other potential problem that I can think of (and which I have run into with other people before) is if they don't check their university email regularly. That can get you in trouble too. But anyway, I doubt that many people outside of your university care much, as long as they can get into contact with you.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours? (It might be good, for obvious reasons, to hear from people who have somehow run into problems doing what the OP does, if only to determine whether people have run into trouble).

Choosing between US and UK jobs?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have been lucky enough this year to get 2 job offers, one from a US university and the other from a UK university; both positions are for tenure track stream, and both universities are ranked in the top 30 universities in the world.

Now it comes the decision making part. I don't have any particular bonding to the two countries, I'm neither American no British, and I never lived in either of the two countries. I have informed myself about how to compare the two academic environments, life, Brexit-uncertainty. I will be very grateful that the folks here can inform me on how to think about this important decision.

Congrats on the offers, and thanks for such a great question! I'm really curious to hear how readers answer. Here a few quick thoughts of my own before I open up things for discussion.

What next after finishing a major project?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'm in the very lucky position that I have a permanent job in the UK on a teaching and research contract. Before this, I had a series of post-docs in Europe and the UK. I finished my PhD in 2012 and I recently published a monograph which rounded off the big research project that my PhD started.

I suppose what I'd like help with is: what next? I'm really struggling to develop and frame a 'second' mid-career research project. Because of the UK system, there is pressure to come up with projects that can result in research grants and books. I generate lots of ideas for projects, but none seem to stick. So how have other people found their second major project and brought it to fruition?

Great question, and I'm curious to hear how readers answer! Here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Do editors hold rejections against authors?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Do journal editors hold an author's past history of rejections at a journal against them?

The worry that motivates this question is that one might think that when editors decide to reject, offer an opportunity to revise and resubmit or accept a piece, they may look to the author's history of rejections at the journal or the features of rejected papers.

I realize that in most cases editors are likely too busy to do this, but I can imagine, even if falsely, that this happens.

Interesting question! I'm hoping the answer is 'no', but think it could be good to hear from editors and others who are in the know (such as authors who have had multiple pieces rejected from a journal but later got an acceptance). What's your experience?

Weaknesses in recommendation letters?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

For those who have read letters of reference for job market candidates (both research and teaching): What are some common weaknesses of reference letters? By 'weakness' here I am particularly interested in negative aspects of letters that the applicant might have worked to minimize the likelihood of. For instance, if a common weakness is that the letter doesn't reflect the applicant's research statement, or the letters disagree with each other, this is perhaps something that the applicant could minimize the likelihood of through early and regular communication.

Of course, those who write letters ultimately are responsible for them, and applicants can only do so much to nudge their committee in the 'right' direction. That said, I'd love to hear, from the perspective of the letter readers, what are some tips that might be helpful for applicants when asking their committee for letters.

This is an interesting question, and I'll leave it to readers to interpret in a broad sense. First, we might ask what makes for a weak reference letter in terms of the letter being poorly written, and so not very helpful to a candidate. Second, we might ask what makes for a weak reference letter in the sense of the letter being well-written but nevertheless containing negative information about the candidate. For search committee members: what kinds of 'weaknesses' of reference letters (in any relevant respect) have you commonly come across?

Getting over the job-market hump?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am consistently getting 1 or 2 interviews a year but I cannot seem to get over the hump, so to speak, to the on-campus phase. I am going on 3 years removed from PhD. I have a non-TT position that is fairly stable but somewhat unsatisfying. Does anyone else have this experience and if so, what would you recommend?

This is a very good question. I had a similar experience. My first three years or so on the job-market were similar. I got one or two TT interviews each year, but had trouble converting them into on-campus visits. I started to worry about 'going stale', and asked several senior mentors for advice. Their advice was to keep publishing and otherwise improving my CV (viz. teaching experience, service, etc.). It ended up working. My number of first-round interviews began climbing each year, as did my number of on-campus visits. I ultimately ended up getting a tenure-track job 7 years post-PhD, in what was likely my final year on the market (as my non-TT job at the time had a 7 year maximum). I'm not sure that sticking it out as long as I did is good advice for everyone, as it was a miserable seven years and I ended up lucking out at the last minute. But, for what it is worth, the advice I received worked: the more that I published, and the more than I improved my teaching and service record, the more interviews I got.

Second, although there can be all sorts of reasons why a candidate isn't converting first-round interviews into on-campus visits, it may be worth doing some mock interviews with friends or even hiring an interviewing coach--as there may be things about the way the OP interviews that come off poorly. As someone who is naturally shy and introverted (and who had a stutter as a child!), I struggle with interviews a lot. I can come across uncomfortable and nervous, and I practiced interviewing a lot with my spouse on improving. We'd do mock interviews while walking, and even by Zooming in different rooms. There are also interviewing consultants one can hire to help one improve. 

Finally, I expect quite a few readers may say that given how bad the job-market is, if the OP is in a fairly unsatisfying job, it may be worth exploring some plan Bs: that is, job opportunities outside of academia. Of course, the OP didn't mention whether they are at the point yet of seriously considering non-academic jobs. But if they are unsatisfied where they are, it could potentially be worth their while to begin exploring their other options. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

How far ahead to prep for classes?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

How far ahead do people prepare for classes (that they teach)?

I have been told by quite a few people that I should prepare for the classes one or two weeks ahead of the schedule. While I can definitely see the benefits of doing this, it did not work well for me. For a class I prepared two weeks beforehand, for example, I always need to spend some time reviewing what I had prepared and to add new things (explanations, examples, discussion questions, etc.) before the class. I find it way easier for me just to prepare for a class on the day/night before. In this way, I can keep everything clear and "fresh" in mind.

I guess this is more about relatively new classes than those I've taught several times. I am curious to see people's thoughts and tips. Thank you!

Great question! I always prep for classes the day or two before. Sometimes, of course, I have things already prepped from previous semesters, but even there, I virtually always go through things, change, and update things a day or two before I teach. Why? Well, I tried prepping a couple of weeks ahead of time a few years back, and I found it just didn't work for me--for roughly the same reasons that the above reader mentions. The material just wasn't fresh enough in my mind, and so the lectures and discussions just didn't seem to go as well that way. Further, as the reader notes, all things considered it actually took more time than just prepping a day or two beforehand (since, in order to remember my lecture notes, I actually had to spend time reviewing them, which I don't have to do if I prep only a day or so in advance).

But these are just my experiences, and I recognize we're all different. I know people who prep far in advance who say it works for them--though I'm curious what their process is like. Anyway, it might be good to hear from readers on this. How far in advance do you prep for your classes, and why? Also, if you do prepare significantly in advance, how do you deal with the issues mentioned above?

Anonymizing self-referencing papers?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a question about anonymity protocol in submitting a certain kind of paper. Right now I'm writing a response to a paper, where the paper I'm responding to is itself a response to an earlier paper of mine. I'm a little unclear on what anonymizing the [new] paper would mean here, given that I'll be defending my earlier paper in depth, extensively citing it, possibly explaining what I had in mind in certain passages, etc. It's difficult for me to think of a way not to make it obvious to reviewers that I'm the author of the earlier paper. I suppose I could frame the new paper in the third person, saying things like "Here's what [my name] could say in response to criticism X..." I worry, though, that that would simply make the paper sound more stilted while still leaving it obvious, given the very nature of the paper, that I'm the author of the earlier paper. Has anyone else come across a similar situation and/or have any tips on handling it?

Good question! I suspect that what the other describes doing (referencing themselves in the third-person) is the best way to handle these cases, and that unfortunately there's not much more that can be done to prevent a referee from inferring that you are probably the author. But perhaps there are some tricks to handling this issue that I'm not aware of. Do any of you have any helpful tips? It could be good to hear not only from authors who have experience with this, but also from referees, as the latter could provide an inside perspective on how things come across to journal reviewers.

Postdocs, relocating, and the path to a FT job

In our "how can we help you?" thread way back from August, a reader recently writes:

I've been told that, in this market, even the most competitive candidates should expect to do post-docs before (having the hope of) obtaining something like full-time employment. I find this disheartening because, given personal factors, relocating for a post-doc and then soon again for a (possible) job would be quite the hardship.

One question is whether people agree that a post-doc is the most feasible way to eventually find oneself to a more regular job. More specifically, do post-docs themselves make candidates more competitive for jobs? If two candidates had similar records (i.e. one published in grad school and the other published in a post-doc), would the individual with a post-doc be seen as more competitive? If so, why?

My impression, unfortunately, is that it is very difficult to get a permanent, full-time job without moving around a bit, either for literal postdocs or Visiting Assistant Professor or lecturer positions--and that these kinds of jobs are indeed likely to make one more competitive. A little while back, it was found that the average time it takes to get a tenure-track job (for those who get them) is close to 2 years post-PhD. Assuming one is on the job-market for at least a couple of years (if not longer), then one needs to be doing something during that time: either in a full-time non-TT job (a postdoc, VAP, etc.), adjuncting, and so on. If you're not willing to move around, then one possibility discussed in the comments section here is to get perhaps getting a 'nominal'/unpaid title (such as Affiliate Researcher, Affiliated Faculty Member, etc.), though I'm not sure how that 'looks' to search committee members. Further, one additional issue with nominal titles is that you're not actually getting job experience (i.e. teaching experience) in those jobs. Then again, if you have a stellar publication record and are not looking for a job at a teaching focused institution, perhaps that does not matter too much.

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from job candidates (e.g. did getting a postdoc suddenly make you more competitive for permanent/TT jobs), as well as from search committee members!

Logic resources?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I've always struggled with logic. I've worked my way through a few logic texts now, and every time I forget most of it shortly after and then wonder, 'what was the point of that?'. I don't enjoy logic and I'm not mathematically inclined. But some areas of my field (metaphysics) are heavy on the logic and it would be nice to be able to keep up. Does anyone know of any resources (books, software programs, etc.) that can help, or just advice in general?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I was in your boat when I started my PhD. But I was forced to confront my distaste for formal logic because my program has a logic exam for 1st year PhD students. A few people from my cohort purchased 'Language, Proof, and Logic' by Barker-Plummer, Barwise, and Etchemendy. It comes with software that is useful for learning translations, truth tables, and derivations. The derivation software is especially useful because it tells you whenever you're taking an invalid step. I think you'd have to order a new copy to ensure that you get the software / get software that has an unused registration key. That said, it looks like it costs about $80 USD, so I'd certainly try to get a second opinion. I know it was useful for me, but perhaps more useful was the study group that I went through the book with, so the software may not have been indispensable.

Nice suggestion! Do any other readers have suggestions of their own?

Discussing leaving the market w/significant others

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

In conversations with a significant other who is not in academia, how do you help them understand that deciding to leave the academic job market is not 'giving up?'

More specifically, how might one communicate to their partner that their relatively stable non TT position is actually quite good, all things considered?

To an outsider, it seems as though someone who put in 7 years for a PhD only to decide they no longer want to pursue TT positions is somehow akin 'giving up on one's dream' and that remaining in a non-TT position is somehow just 'settling.' I struggle to help them understand that these kinds of phrases and this general framework are simply not as applicable here.

And I ask this sincerely, so responses like 'there's no jobs' or 'its soul-crushing' are not especially helpful.

So please, serious responses only.

These are really good questions. My spouse and I had a number of somewhat similar discussions during my time on the market. I didn't have the option of staying in a stable non-TT position, so in my case the discussions were about whether to leave academia altogether. But anyway, here are a few thoughts...

How can we help you? (Jan-Feb 2021)

Now that it's been close to a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Handling a grievance in a grad program?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I would be interested in hearing readers' insights about how to approach your department, as a grad student, if you have a grievance against a particular faculty member. Of course this varies a lot place to place and situation to situation - but if it's possible to give a general answer: whom should you go to? How should you pursue it? How should you frame it?

These are really great and important questions. Because I don't have any first-hand experience here, I don't think that I'm very well-positioned to offer tips or advice. However, I will say that I have heard horror stories about departments 'protecting' faculty members, so much so that it may seriously impact the student's well-being, ability to finish the program, and succeed in the profession. This isn't to say that one shouldn't pursue a grievance. If the problem is serious enough (such as sexual misconduct), one may feel duty-bound to do something, so that the faculty member in question cannot continue to victimize others. It is to say, however, that lodging grievances may be very much fraught with peril (laws against retaliation notwithstanding). But again, these are just things I've heard. 

Anyway, I am very curious to hear from readers, especially from current or former grad students who have pursued grievances, as well as from grad program faculty or administrators who have handled them. If a grad student has a grievance, what should they do? Who should they go to, and how?

Over-submitting to conferences?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'm a graduate student from a third world country with only very little experience in conferencing. With COVID still going nowhere, most (if not all) upcoming student conferences are moved online and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to submit to *all* of them--which is obviously something I wouldn't do in the past--and then choose between conferences if need be. Also, do you think that there is a maximum number of conferences for the same paper to be presented at so that I don't come across as making a big deal out of just one piece of work?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear readers' answers. I saw a thread on a similar issue on Twitter the other day, and the general consensus seemed to be that it is fine to apply to as many conferences as one likes--the idea being that submitting for a conference is not in itself a commitment to attend. I wouldn't be surprised if some readers think otherwise, holding that one should only apply to conferences on the presupposition that one will attend if accepted. But, for my part, this seems overly restrictive. Many of us (at least in normal times) can't know whether we will be able to attend before submitting, in part because our universities only consider travel funding requests after one is invited. Anyway, I'm curious what readers think.

In terms of the question of whether there's a maximum number of conferences worth presenting one's work at, I don't think there is any limit in principle. But I do think there are some practical reasons to only present a given work several times at most, at least if one is an early career person. First, the more places you present a paper, the more likely it is that potential journal reviewers will know who you are. This could of course be a boon to you if you are at a prestigious program (since there may be biases toward people at such programs), but it could well backfire if you are at lesser-know, less prestigious program. Second, I suspect that the more times you presents a piece of work, there will be diminishing returns: you'll get bored presenting the paper, the same kinds of commentator and Q&A comments, etc. You don't need to get the same feedback over and over again to know which parts of the paper journal reviewers are likely to balk at--so, at some point, usually after a handful of conferences, you'll probably have enough feedback to go on to send the paper out to a journal instead.

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Transitioning into administration without tenure?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am a tenure-track faculty at mid-sized R2 that is aspiring to be an R1. I have become increasingly disinterested in research and increasingly interested in teaching and service/administration. As such, I no longer desire to go up for tenure. Since I do enjoy teaching and service/administration, I would like to stay employed at the university, if possible (moving geographically is not an option given my familial circumstances). Are faculty who do not go up for tenure ever allowed to move to a lecturer line and/or admin job at the same institution? If so, who makes this decision? How is it negotiated? Some have advised I just do what needs to be done for tenure and then focus on teaching and service after, but I’d rather just start working now on the projects I’m actually interested and not try to pull off some bait and switch in my department. Any insight would be appreciated!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

Here is some advice from someone who did make a partial move into admin. DO NOT not go up for tenure. Get tenure. Just do what you have to. Then, really get involved in administrative things around campus. It will be a great service to your department and to our profession. We need philosophers involved in admin at universities. Then our voice is at the table (the adult table). But it is imperative that you do it as a tenured faculty. There is my advice.

This seems broadly right to me. While I think it may be possible to get a well-paid, full-time administrative job at a university without tenure (such as running a Center for Teaching & Learning, Wellness Center, etc.), my sense is that it is highly unusual and that many universities require upper administrators (e.g. deans, etc.) to have tenure. So, I think the safe thing to do is to get tenure (if possible), and then transition into administration. But then again, these are just my impressions, and they may be incorrect or idiosyncratic. What do you all think, particularly those of you with experience in these matters? Also, if you do have experience, how would you answer the OP's questions about the process of transitioning into admin?

Is lack of affiliation a problem on the market?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'm curious if anyone has thoughts about how important it is to have university affiliation (either as part of a graduate program or as a VAP, postdoc, etc) when you are on the job market.

Given that so many of us will be unemployed next year, and for a lot of us it's not practical/possible to stay in our PhD programs for another year, what should we do? If we can find a way to support ourselves (through non-academic work) without moving for the sake of a short-term position with a very high teaching load, that would free up a considerable amount of time and energy to make progress on research and hopefully be a more competitive candidate for the next round of applications. But if it would look terrible on a job application to have no current university affiliation, then it might just be a priority for those of us who want to apply again next year to do our best to get *something*.

What do others think?

This is a good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is undeniable that having an academic affiliation on the job market is a +. Consider this. There are 200 applicants for a job. 150 have an academic affiliation, and 50 do not. Isn't it likely that for every one of the 50 without who has three publications, and good teaching evaluations, etc. there are 3 in the pool of 150 who have one. So other things being equal, you will be setting yourself at a disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is a bit strong. Yes, a search committee member may notice absence of current institutional affiliation. And yes, all things being equal, it could be a negative. But are search committee members so narrow-minded that they wouldn't bear the candidate's entire record in mind when evaluating this? I mean, suppose the candidate is otherwise excellent: they have good publications, a good teaching record, etc. I have to imagine that most search committee members would still seriously consider the person. We all know how bad the market is, and surely this would figure into most of our minds. 

So no, I don't think it would 'look terrible' to lack an academic affiliation for a year, and indeed, I seem to recall a few job-candidates who were out of academia for a year or two end up with good academic jobs--in large part, it seems, because they still published in good venues. The real issue, I expect, is how long one lacks an academic affiliation. A year seems fine to me. But beyond that, I expect it could begin to count as much more of a negative.

But these are really only some off-hand thoughts, and could be entirely idiosyncratic to me. What do the rest of you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Advice on giving good Zoom talks?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Al writes:

Wondering if anyone has advice on giving Zoom talks (in my case it's an invited talk rather than a job talk, if that matters). I usually use powerpoint, so the obvious thing would be to share my screen with my slides up on the screen. Alternatively, I could email around (or post a link to) a handout, and talk through that.

Any other suggestions/advice?

Great question! Another reader submitted the following response:

From my experience, you should use powerpoint. Do not present from a handout. If you want to give them an aid, send the paper in advance. I did this recently. It was for an audience whose first language is not English. They really appreciated, and the questions in the Q&A were, as a result, quite sophisticated. Consequently, it was a far better experience than I expected.

I don't know. Until yesterday, I might have agreed with this. But yesterday, I sat in on an Eastern APA session where the author used a handout, which they shared via Zoom's chat function. I thought it went just fine! I opened the handout on one side of my screen while watching the speaker on the other--and I thought it worked just about as well for the speaker as using a PowerPoint. I was able to follow everything well via the handout, and the talk itself was engaging.

In any case, if the OP does use PowerPoint, I would advise not to simply share the presentation via Zoom. My experience here is that if one simply shares a PowerPoint, the slides take up the whole screen (as is standard in PowerPoint's 'present' function), and the speaker is in a little box in the corner, then the presentation can seem less engaging. In my author-meets-critics session at the Eastern APA last week, I did something different that I thought worked well. I saved my PowerPoint slides as a PDF, opened the PDF in one window, selected the 'read mode' function (which make them take up the whole PDF window), and then did 'share screen' via Zoom, placing my PDF/slides on the left-hand side of the screen with my Zoom camera feed taking up the right-hand side of my screen. The advantage here is that the audience can view a large enough version of the PowerPoint to read and see the speaker in a large window at the same time--thus approximating the experience one would have viewing a philosophy talk in person, at least as far as is possible via Zoom.

But these are just my reactions/tips. What are yours?

Applying in future years to jobs one didn't get?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Annie writes:

My questions concern applying for jobs in departments that one has in previous years been short-listed but ultimately rejected from. Is this something one should acknowledge in one's cover letter? Should one hedge by keeping the same materials like a writing sample (since they worked last time and they might not be remembered) or do something new (to show you've developed or something)? Anything else worth knowing? Thanks everyone

Interesting questions. My reaction here is pretty unequivocal: I don't think it is worth mentioning or doing anything special with one's application materials. Let me explain.

Teaching Portfolio's vs. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness"

Just before the end of the year, I got an email from a former colleague of mine who is doing her first run on the job market. She asked if I had any input on the difference between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness." The latter phrase is commonly used on job ads these days as a required component of one's application, but it is often ambiguous as to what exactly should be included. Here's what I told her in my response:

When I was last on the job market, my teaching portfolio contained (1) my statement of teaching philosophy, (2) a brief summary of my student evaluations from the last several years, (3) two full sets of student evaluations from recent courses taught, (4) two full sample syllabi, and (5) two brief course proposals (with reading lists) for courses I was ready to teach but had never actually taught. When I was asked for evidence of teaching effectiveness, I usually included fewer materials -- the teaching statement, summary of evaluations, a single set of student evaluations, one sample syllabus, and sometimes one course proposal. If I could, I tailored these documents to the job ad. If I were expected to teach a course like Contemporary Moral Problems, for instance, then I'd be sure to include evaluations from that course, and if I were expected to teach a philosophy of technology course, then I'd slip in my course proposal for that class.

 

In my experience, asking for an entire teaching portfolio has become relatively rare. In my last job search, less than 15% of the jobs I applied for requested it. Requests for either "evidence of teaching effectiveness" or a specific list of teaching-related items appears to be the norm now. I suspect that this is because there are so many job applicants now that most committee members don't want to sift through a portfolio of 25-30 pages and have assumed that evidence of teaching effectiveness should be more focused and concise than a full portfolio. The institutions that requested full portfolios were, as you might expect, teaching focused schools, and I suspect that the portfolio was one of the weightiest parts of those application.

 

This, however, is only my impression of the difference, and I could be mistaken. Does anyone else have a take on the distinction between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness" who would like to weigh in?

Journal format(ting) requirements?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Confused writes:

Some journals (e.g Philosophical Studies) state on their websites that submissions should be in Word (doc/docx files). Others (e.g. Synthese) explicitly say "Word or pdf". Do the former journals really not accept pdf submissions?

I've always been a bit puzzled by these kinds of requirements myself, and think it might be good to hear from some readers with an inside view on things (i.e. journal editors). Why do journals have these kinds of requirements? Do you automatically reject a paper that doesn't conform to them? And what about formatting requirements (such as requiring endnotes rather than footnotes)? Do you automatically reject papers that don't conform to those?

Submitting a different version of a paper?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Damian writes:

Around a year ago a paper of mine was desk rejected by a few of the top 20 philosophy journals. Since then I have completely revised the paper, to the degree that only the topic (broadly construed) remains the same and some expository parts remain the same. The paper now has a completely different title, a completely different argumentative structure, and a completely different conclusion than the reject version.

Since I still believe that some of the journals that desk rejected the old version are a good fit for this paper, my question is, whether it's fine if I resend the new version to them?

This is a good question, and one that I faced earlier in my career. I think the answer is 'no.' Even if the paper is 'completely revised', my sense is that the journal is likely to consider it a newer version of the original paper that was desk-rejected. Although I suppose it's possible that you might get away with it, I suspect an editor is probably likely to realize that it's a paper that was already submitted. They might not only see the old one in their system when they log in (if they briefly review your previous submissions); they might also read the paper to see if it's worth sending out to reviewers and recall the earlier version--and I imagine this could really irritate them, particularly if you changed the title (which they might find intentionally deceptive).

To be clear, I'm not sure about any of this. However, the longer I've gone in my career, the more it's seemed to me that it's not worth taking risks like this. If a journal rejected an earlier version of my paper, I won't consider that journal an option for it. There are other good journals, after all. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Best practices for research support at SLACs?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Josh writes:

I would be very grateful to get some hive-mind wisdom on the topic of research policy at SLACs. I'm at a small, mission-driven university that is doing its best to take research seriously. We often "punch above our weight," as it were, but we don't have much in the way of clear policy that might offer needed (in my view) structural incentives for faculty research.

I'm wondering about "best practices" when it comes to such structural incentives, e.g., policies on course and/or administrative release for grant-holders, grant applicants, course buyouts, non-grant-holding researchers, sabbatical policies, etc. I'd be especially grateful for ideas from those at SLACs, but definitely all ideas welcome.

Great questions! I'm curious to hear from readers who work at SLACs both on what their university's policies are like, as well as what people think 'best practices' are. I think my university does some nice things to support research for full-time faculty. Although I may be forgetting some things (I don't know whether grant-holders can get course releases), I do know that we have the following:

1. Annual merit raises: for full-time faculty, which depend on teaching, research, and service performance, though one can choose to have research weighted up to 40% in one's annual score.
2. Internal grants: which are competitive, but which any full-time faculty can apply for annually.
3. Post pre-tenure review course releases: a one-time, one course offload that tenure-track faculty get after successfully passing their 3rd-year pre-tenure review.
4. Sabbaticals: which tenured faculty can apply for after 6 years, either for one semester at full pay or for one year at half-pay.
5. Travel funding: which one must apply for prior to every conference, but can enable one to travel to from between 1-3 conferences per year.

If you work at a SLAC, what are your university's research-related policies and incentives? And what do you think 'best practices' are?

Elitism in graduate program admissions?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Inspired by the thread on letters of recommendation, I have a question about elitism and graduate admissions. I recently saw a current PhD student say that institutional prestige (including fame of letter writers) is the most important component of one's application, whether one has a great sample or not.

I am now curious--for those in PhD-granting departments, does it seem like the institutional prestige plays a bigger role simply because of unrecognized/unmanaged ignorance related to elitism, or is it that the adcom members are simply more likely to respect and know the letter writers, thereby giving more weight to their letters? Further, does this matter depending on the ranking and reputation of the institution?

Depending on those answers, I am curious as to how someone coming from a low-ranked or unranked PGR program that is still an R1 university with famous faculty fit into the picture. If they have one or more famous letter writers, does institutional prestige begin to matter much less? A little less? Or is there something else about prestige that will end up penalizing even someone with a famous letter writer from an R1 university (e.g., grade inflation)?

I know Eric Schwitzgebel has posted about this, and my own scouring of current PhD students on department websites leads me to believe that elitism plays a role in admissions to Ivy league programs and PGR top-ranked private schools (e.g., Georgetown). However, when you get below a certain rank you begin to see institutional prestige matter far less or perhaps not at all (e.g., UC Boulder seems to have many PhD students from small/unranked schools).

All of this leads me to hypothesize that even ignoring fame of the letter writers and the skills you get from higher-ranked schools, the simple fact that you went to a highly-ranked school can bolster your application in the eyes of adcom members who consider their programs to be "elite" (aka, upholding the literal definition of elitism), but not as much for programs who consider themselves not-elite, or who have made efforts to mitigate the effects of what Kristie Dotson would call pernicious ignorance.

note: I did not seriously consider the idea that elitism is recognized and endorsed by elite institutions to try and be charitable, but if someone haves reason to believe otherwise let me know

I think it would be good to hear from admissions committee members about this. I will say that I have heard, at least anecdotally, that a few highly ranked programs have taken active steps to combat elitism in grad admissions. However, all other indications are that elitism still plays a large role in philosophy, and indeed, in academia more generally. For example:

• Eric Schwitzgebel found in 2019 that elite philosophy PhD programs mostly admit students from elite undergrad institutions, and that only 11% of students in the elite PhD programs he studied were from institutions not nationally ranked in US News & World Report.
• Helen De Cruz found in 2018 that philosophy PhDs from low-ranked departments rarely secure employment in high-ranked departments.
• This 2015 study found steeply hierarchical inequality in faculty hiring across three disciplines, with just a quarter of all universities accounting for 71 to 86 percent of all tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and Canada. The study also found that "18 elite universities produce half of all computer science professors, 16 schools produce half of all business professors, and eight schools account for half of all history professors."

Whatever the cause, it seems that elitism is a big thing in academia. But still, it might be good to hear from readers, particularly those who have served on grad admissions committees. How would you answer the OP's questions:

1. Does it seem like the institutional prestige plays a bigger role simply because of unrecognized/unmanaged ignorance related to elitism, or is it that the adcom members are simply more likely to respect and know the letter writers, thereby giving more weight to their letters?
2. Does this depend on the rank and reputation of the institution?
3. If [someone coming from a low-ranked or unranked program] has one or more famous letter writers, does institutional prestige begin to matter much less in grad admissions?

Staying competitive in philosophy in a non-philosophy postdoc?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Question on doing interdisciplinary work. I've done empirically inspired philosophical work before, but am now taking on a postdoc in a non-philosophy project. This leads me to wondering how to ensure that I remain a competitive candidate within Philosophy. I assume I need to make sure I also publish my own, solo, philosophical work -- but I can't realistically do as much of it as someone doing a philosophy postdoc. Are there ways to help make the non-philosophical research help and not hinder future hires? Also, will recommendation letters from my non-philosopher supervisors in that postdoc count for anything? A further concern is that this is a research only position, which means it doesn't enable expanding my meager teaching portfolio. Should I try to adjunct a class or two on the side to make up for that?

These are interesting questions. This appears to me to be a serious issue for postdocs in Europe. In the United States, postdocs aren't hired to complete a particular project. But from what I can tell, in at least some places in Europe, that's exactly what postdocs are: one is hired (it seems) into a position funded by a particular grant or whatever, and your activities in the postdoc are supposed to be on the funded project, whatever it is. Assuming this is right, it seems to me to place postdocs in a terrible position in multiple respects. First, the postdoc may have to more or less give up on their own research program in favor of the grant-funded project. And second, as we see in the OP, the project may be largely empirical or not even in philosophy.

What should postdocs in this kind of position do? I think the OP is right that they should try to continue publishing solo philosophy work on the side. But aside from that, I'm not sure. I don't know how useful recommendation letters from non-philosophers will be for applying for jobs in philosophy. And given that postdocs like the one the OP described don't have teaching, the OP is in a triple-bind: they need to somehow spend most of their time working on their postdoc project, while also publishing solo work in philosophy and (ideally) getting some teaching experience. All things being equal, I think seeking out adjunct work would be a good idea--but, as we see here, all things aren't equal. I don't know how someone in their position can realistically do all of the above. So unfortunately, I have to confess that I don't know what to say here. It seems to me that postdoc practices like these place recent PhDs in an extremely difficult position, one that I don't have any clear views on how to best navigate (in large part because I've never been in the situation myself).

Do any readers out there have any better answers? Have any of you been in a similar position? If so, what would you suggest the OP do? If not, what do you think the OP should do, looking at it from an outside perspective?

Tech tips for interviews?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Jack writes:

I have a second query that I thought of while reading the replies, in particular some that mention lighting and headphones. I was under the impression that headphones look a little unprofessional but on reflection that seems silly. Perhaps we could have a dedicated thread on what equipment is good for zoom interviews and other tips about lighting, angles, etc?

One reader ('Newly TT') made a couple of suggestions in our thread on how to dress for Zoom interviews:

[I]nvest in a good webcam and microphone. I actually think it makes a big difference, since you come out in HD and with good sound quality instead of a pixelated mess with tinny audio. I bought a webcam and mic set for all of my Skype interviews last year, before COVID made Zoom a thing. It happened that I could repurpose the same camera and mic for online teaching nowadays, but I think that it's worth it regardless! It's like a $100 investment and if it makes a difference, it pays off big-time.

These are good suggestions, I think, but I also think it could be good to discuss Jack's original query in more detail. Indeed, I think it could be good to hear both from candidates about what has worked well (and not so well) for them, as well as from search committee members. So, here are a few questions directed toward each group:

For job candidates: which tech tips do you have for other job-candidates? Which kind of tech have you used that seems to be important and work well for you? On the flip side, what have you tried that hasn't worked so well? Do you use headphones? Artificial lighting? A professional mic? Wired (as opposed to wireless) internet access?

For search committee members: what have you seen that seems to work well or not so well for job-candidates? What sorts of things have you noticed that come across well or not so well? For example, do you think big headphones look weird or less-than-professional, or do you not care at all? Indeed, aside from being able to see and hear a candidate decently, do you think all of this talk about tech (e.g. lighting, etc.) is overblown?

For both groups: don't feel any need to be constrained by the questions suggested above. Feel free to share whatever thoughts you have on the general issue of tech in interviews!